IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

No, people without access to guns aren't. It's just the people with arsenals we need to worry about.

Well, scratch that. Crazy people can just take the guns from other people's arsenals, like Adam Lanza did, and then go on a killing spree. You might be on to something here. Perhaps the problem is that people are amassing arsenals.

Thanks for the insight!

What you call an "arsenal" I call a collection.

I'm much more concerned with the person who only needs one.

Originally Posted by Nessie

Or maybe he wants to provoke reactions like to further justify his position that gun owners and a bit nuts.

Too bad there isn't a word for that.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

Because a mass-shooter only needs one. More concerned relative to those with a collection.

Not to say everybody who wants just one is going to be a shooter - far from it. If I were to purchase the ACR I'd like, it would be my only one but only for financial reasons (and that was even before they doubled in price, thanks Diane! ).

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

But, seriously, things like that give new dimension to the phrase "gilding the lily".

Can you translate that into hillbilly for me?

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

Because it would cost money, create crime where no crime existed before, and alienate a segment of society for no effect.

Are you really unable to understand?

So if they banned placing hello kitty stickers on the gun, would you be just as fired up?

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

No, people without access to guns aren't. It's just the people with arsenals we need to worry about.

Well, scratch that. Crazy people can just take the guns from other people's arsenals, like Adam Lanza did, and then go on a killing spree. You might be on to something here. Perhaps the problem is that people are amassing arsenals.

Thanks for the insight!

What do you call an arsenal? Mayhaps over 20 guns? 10? I personally think more than 1.

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

Home invasions do occur. It's rare. Fear over it is on par with fear about there being a pedophile behind every bush and corner. The NRA isn't alone in selling fear for profit.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

I cannot see it changing ever, it is not just about the rate of deaths but the whole UK gun culture would have to change.

If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs.

Your avoiding my question instead of answering it.

You said that you would not carry a defensive deadly weapon because were you live the rate of deadly encounters is not at the point in which you feel it would be needed. I am paraphrasing so please correct me if this meaning is not correct.

So the corollary is very clear.

At what rate would you carry? You are not the only person to make such statements, so anyone else that agrees with this assessment, please do feel free to answer and let me know what the rate of homicide would need to be for you to feel the need was relevant.

You cannot on one hand say this and have no rate at which you would carry. Definition of irrational.

Quote:

If UK gun crime suddenly rocketed, it would be dealt with by more armed police, not the public and DGUs.

You simply cannot know what you claim to know about not only what the response would be, but if it would be effective.

__________________"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."-Epicurus

Freedom of Speech is a right recognized in the First Amendment. Freedom from consequence is nowhere to be found. -Bstrong

The guy blowing away the kid who drove into the wrong driveway is an extreme example, but it's far from the only one. People end up shooting their own kid who is sneaking home after staying out late. Or the drunk that walks into the wrong unit in a row of identical townhouses.

Yes, there are home invasions. Some of them are actually fights between rival gangs. Some are attempts to rob the guy growing pot in his basement. Some are unarmed burglaries gone wrong. The burglars were just looking for stuff to steal and it didn't look like anyone was home. Few are homes targeted at random by criminal gangs intent on mayhem and murder.

That loaded firearm kept ready fight off home invaders is far more likely be used on an innocent person.

You said that you would not carry a defensive deadly weapon because were you live the rate of deadly encounters is not at the point in which you feel it would be needed. I am paraphrasing so please correct me if this meaning is not correct.

So the corollary is very clear.

At what rate would you carry? You are not the only person to make such statements, so anyone else that agrees with this assessment, please do feel free to answer and let me know what the rate of homicide would need to be for you to feel the need was relevant.

You cannot on one hand say this and have no rate at which you would carry. Definition of irrational.

I would not carry in normal day to day life. Just like the majority of Americans do right now. It is the minority who feel the need/want to have a gun for self defence. We know from the New York map of gun owners published in the newspaper that streets have some with and some without guns. I would be one of those without. Even in the highest crime areas there are people who do not have guns.

Do you think there should be a number of deaths beyond which it should be law that you have to carry a gun?

As for rate of homicide, I would need there to be a war on and the UK is being invaded before I would carry.

Quote:

You simply cannot know what you claim to know about not only what the response would be, but if it would be effective.

I would not carry in normal day to day life. Just like the majority of Americans do right now. It is the minority who feel the need/want to have a gun for self defence. We know from the New York map of gun owners published in the newspaper that streets have some with and some without guns. I would be one of those without. Even in the highest crime areas there are people who do not have guns.

Do you think there should be a number of deaths beyond which it should be law that you have to carry a gun?

As for rate of homicide, I would need there to be a war on and the UK is being invaded before I would carry.

Neither do you.

Ok so clearly more caveats exist for you than just the probability of needing a deadly weapon.

I am honest with my bias. I stated clearly that I neglected to carry before I experienced the death of my friend. Stats did not matter before, and do not matter after.

That such a situation can occur is all that matters to me. That it happened means it can happen again.

It really is that simple for me. 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. I am not psychic, so instead I am prepared.

__________________"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."-Epicurus

Freedom of Speech is a right recognized in the First Amendment. Freedom from consequence is nowhere to be found. -Bstrong

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

Here in the US, paranoid homeowners shoot people for tuning into the wrong driveway. Is this collateral damage from gun lobby rhetoric about defending your home from invaders?

Yes. It's just the price we pay for freedom to own guns along with the other senseless gun crimes.

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

Ok so clearly more caveats exist for you than just the probability of needing a deadly weapon.

I am honest with my bias. I stated clearly that I neglected to carry before I experienced the death of my friend. Stats did not matter before, and do not matter after.

That such a situation can occur is all that matters to me. That it happened means it can happen again.

It really is that simple for me. 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. I am not psychic, so instead I am prepared.

Do you wear armor as well? Why or why not?

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine